Fritz Griffith wrote:
>>James Higgo wrote:
>> >I don't see the need for alternative theories. And like Liebnitz's
>> >each containing an entire world, there is no need for communication
>> >observer moments.
>>BM: Hard for me to swallow that literally. My question for you and Fritz
>>Griffith: how do you define observer moment, *precisely* ?
>Well, as precise as I can make my definition:
>An observer moment is your experience of everything at a certain moment that
>lasts for a duration of one plancke-time. Your current thought,
>understandings, knowledge, emotion - everything that makes up your
>perception of you and your universe, concious and subconcious (in other
>words, the exact state of your brain) is looked at in one single moment of
>Now, if you can accept that an observer moment must contain the perception
>of a smooth, consistant flow of time, and that it perceives to exists in one
>moment within this time, as I have been trying to explain in previous posts
OK. I have an intuitive understanding of what you are saying and I am
open to such kind of inspiration. But my demand of an explanation is far
greater. In particular I reject anything based on any empirical
experience and experiments except as inspiration. To be sure I accept only
natural numbers and their effective relations. More generally
I don't take for granted any of the following words:
<<Observer, experience, everything, moment, duration, Planck-time,
current thought, knowledge, emotion, perception, "my", universe,
conscious, state, brain, smooth, consistent, flow, time.>>
Eventually all these world should be defined in term of arithmetical
relations before I understand your definition.
>- then I ask you, how do you know that you do not simply exist as this
>single observer moment, believing, subconciously, that you actually lived
>right up until this moment, and that in an instant that moment will pass?
How do I know ...? I just don't know that (and with comp, I don't believe